Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Portugal Jones wrote:
HivefleetO beat me too it. All this talk about recasts as 'better' was very... odd. At a maximum, they're only going to be about as good as the original models recieved from FW, so if what the recasters are selling is so good...

It isn't so much they're HD casts over the SD FW originals as that it seems when the mould is created from the original, it seems many recasters take the time to correct casting errors in the original, so they're not present in the later casts.

The very nature of recasting is exactly the same process as casting, it's just the moulds are taken from another copy rather than the master. You're still essentially looking at a 1st generation copy though, and in circumstances where I've seen models side by side, any loss of detail doesn't really notice.

BookW has a point. The fact that I don't feel ripped off by FW prices is just my opinion, but it doesn't matter how much they lower costs, the recasts are always going to be signifigantly cheaper. FW is never going to catch up, because all the recaster needs is to buy one set of models from FW and a resin casting setup and they're good to go. I'm reminded of a screed I read about a guy justifying why he pirated all his video games - because once a game was made, the only cost was the disc, so charging (it was yen but the USD cost was)$80-$100 was stealing out of his pocket, so the companies had no one to blame but themselves.

There are a lot of problems with that statement, and I'm pretty much seeing the same flaws in the 'no problem with recasts' posted here.

What would be a price that'd have people choose FW over the recaster? $5 more? $20? You're going to run into the fact that catagorically, there is always going to be a signifigant price difference. If FW lowers the price as much as possible, but you want a nice set of big legion tanks and you still save a hundred dollars buying from the recaster, will you go with FW anyway?

There's a point where it is no longer viable for recasters to make enough cash to be worth it, unlike digital products, there is a tangible physical cost to making each model, and they're ongoing in resin casts because moulds need replacing etc

FW wouldn't need to lower costs that low, just low enough that the benefits of buying the original outweigh the savings of buying a recast.

As someone already said, you seldom see recasts of plastic kits advertised, as paying £12-15 for a kit that can be bought from a discounter for £18 just isn't worthwhile.

@Kan

I can only speak for the ads I've seen on a fairly widely known ?Chinese ebay/Amazon equivalent, but in their listing they nearly always have something along the lines of "this isn't an original, and may have some flaws, if you want a perfect copy buy original"

Only poorly translated from Mandarin into English!

I've seen enough of both that I can guarantee that good copies are better than Forgeworld. The sculpt is obviously the same, but there is less warping, bubbles, broken bits, missing bits, etc. The measure is honestly pretty simple - how much time does it take me to get this model from the bag to being ready to paint? FW isn't exactly a champion in this department.

Some recasters also tend to assemle models partway before copying them. Which leads me to think they have better quality mold rubber and better skill, to be able to cast more complicated pieces than FW can.

 Portugal Jones wrote:
What would be a price that'd have people choose FW over the recaster? $5 more? $20? You're going to run into the fact that catagorically, there is always going to be a signifigant price difference. If FW lowers the price as much as possible, but you want a nice set of big legion tanks and you still save a hundred dollars buying from the recaster, will you go with FW anyway?

If they just charged what other companies tend to charge for resin, recasters wouldn't even bother. Infantry minis at about 2 pounds per mini, and terminator-like infantry at 3 - 3'5 pounds per mini.

Instead FW decides to charge almost 7 pounds per terminator model, so recasters naturally take advantage of that, and offer the same product (or better) at around 3'5 pounds per mini. Half the price, same or even better product. Someone is doing something wrong.

As I've said before, recasters don't even bother with GW's cheapest plastic kits (i.e. dark elf corsairs) so the "recasts will always be cheaper so you'll never buy the official product" argument is terribly flawed. However recasters do bother with GW's most expensive plastic kits (i.e. executioners/black guard). Hence recasters have a business because GW allows it.

Lord Blackfang and Azreal13 explained it better than me. The sculpt is obviously not changing, but it's all about the quality of separate parts that can be better than Forgeworld's work.

And that is really disturbing to me; you're paying the original and are rewarded by gaps, bubbles or broken bits? No kidding they are very good on customer support. For the price they're asking, that's the very least they have to do, otherwise no one would ever buy from them.

But then, buying from Forgeworld is a matter of blind passion, not reason. That's why people are very lenient with them, IMHO.

 kronk wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


Azreal, you speak with certainty that fear of poisonous resins from China/Russia is a non-issue. Care to share your knowledge on why you think the safety of those materials are beyond questioning? I'd even open this question up to anyone else in the thread that is qualified to answer it. Concerns over toxic materials has kept me from purchasing non-counterfeit resin models Russia and China in the past so this is an area I'd like to learn more about.

As we have a little daughter, we had our stock of FW stuff checked. Resin (or rather: in general, production quality) used had a lower quality than comparable GW models and toxicity levels were slightly higher, but still far from being actually toxic. Stuff checked were a Giant Squigg, Squigg Gobbla, Fire Elemental, Tomb Stalker, 6 Sentry Pylons and 2 Pylons. Bought from 2 different retailers.

Checked? By whom? How much did that cost?

Frauenhofer Institut, not giving the exact amount of money but more than we paid for all the models.

Just so you know; all recasters are not from China or Russia. They are just more careful and don't advertise themselves so much, for obvious reasons

 Peregrine wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
This is why we are having so many disorienting issues crop up like miniature piracy, where the technology to do so has become so inexpensive, and easily available that anyone can produce what used to be specialty items.

No is isn't, because miniature piracy has nothing to do with modern technology. Recasts are made with the same old resin casting techniques everyone has been using for decades. The only difference between recasting in 1970 and recasting in 2015 is that the internet has allowed a shift from "I know a guy who knows a guy" to Chinese businesses openly advertising their recasts on ebay.

The Internet offered a medium where people who otherwise might not even know how to go about making a mold, or casting, can just google:

"Resin Casting Tutorials"

And get a selection of hundreds of people offering tips for just about everything one might encounter in creating a mold and casting.

And then forums where modelers are available to be asked questions when problems arise.

In the 1980s/90s, mold making was still a very specialized skill, even among Modelers. Even more so if we are talking Vulcanized Rubber Molds.

Yet there are now ubiquitous means of accessing that knowledge.

AND....

Mold making itself is beginning to experience a threat from 3D scanning/printing technologies.

If you are upset about "recasters" now, how are you going to feel when people can buy a machine for a few thousand dollars that effectively lets them Xerox their miniatures? Such machines are already less than $10,000, and the price is falling pretty rapidly.

MB

3-D printing will not replace casting for a long time. The printers are too expensive and too slow relative to molds to make creating detailed miniatures that way feasible.

It takes hours to make a single miniature with a 3-d printer. In that same period, I can cast dozens of models using a regular mold.

I don't know about a "long" time.

Where were 3D printers in relation to where they are now, say, 3 years ago?

They couldn't do any sort of detail work.

Now they can, sort of, but they still take forever. And even if they manage to become fast enough to mass produce anything they'll remain complicated and expensive pieces of equipment. Molds will still be preferable forms of production.

 Grey Templar wrote:
3-D printing will not replace casting for a long time. The printers are too expensive and too slow relative to molds to make creating detailed miniatures that way feasible.

It takes hours to make a single miniature with a 3-d printer. In that same period, I can cast dozens of models using a regular mold.

You would need to define "a long time."

I've worked with 3D Printing and Milling technologies for around 12 years now, and the newer technologies are becoming incredibly fast (with multiple cyclic print-heads that can lay down multiple layers a second).

And Stereolithography can be incredibly fast (but remains incredibly expensive, comparatively, to deposition printing methods).

But we have seen, in five years, the price of 3D printers fall to below $1,000 for .12mm resolution deposition printing, and below $5,000 for Stereolithography (with a very tiny print-tray).

And it is likely that within 5 years, we are going to see the same thing happen with scanners.

In five years, the technology will be inexpensive enough that th nature of piracy will have changed considerably.

For instance, with what I have available at the place where I am currently contracted, I have been extremely tempted to scan a bunch of 40K stuff, and then print it at 15mm size.... Since so many people want 15mm 40K, that isn't just a proxy.

MB

 Grey Templar wrote:
They couldn't do any sort of detail work.

Now they can, sort of, but they still take forever. And even if they manage to become fast enough to mass produce anything they'll remain complicated and expensive pieces of equipment. Molds will still be preferable forms of production.

We're not talking mass production though, we're talking being able to download and print a couple of dozen Space Marines for the home user, or even scan and replicate the same.

I agree, as a mass production method it's probably a significant time yet (if it ever becomes practical or necessary) but for the scale needed (both in terms of modelling scale and scope) for a hobbyist to, in effect, recast their own models, I think it is a lot closer.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Woops, no, that was typo on my part

Ah, okay! So non-GW/FW resin is slightly more toxic than the official stuff. Therein lies my concern. Why is it slightly more toxic? What was added?

 Azreal13 wrote:


I'm pretty sure nobody is eating their recasts.

Hobbyists, not likely. Pets, or children, however...

 Azreal13 wrote:
Let me turn it around, what, exactly, do you think would be significantly cheaper than resin, an already cheap material, to make it worth substituting that wouldn't compromise the properties of the material when it comes to casting?

This would also need to be a material that was sufficiently toxic, once trapped in cured resin, to be of danger simply by handling it and perhaps inhaling a small amount of dust (something which is inadvisable with resin whose provenance isn't in question.)

Like I said, Occam's Razor, the most likely explanation is that they're just using resin, because there's no obvious benefit to doing anything else. Oh, and all resin is toxic before it is cured, it is that chemical process that renders it inert, so there's no real point in worrying that they perhaps use different compounds.

At the end of the day, the best material to make resin models out of is resin.

Again, I am acknowledging my ignorance regarding resin use, but your repeated utterance of "Occam's Razor" makes me think you really don't know much more about this topic than I do.

Why was melamine added to baby formula and pet food by Chinese companies?

The answer to me is cost. Adding that gak to those products increased profit for those companies at the expense of consumers. So why wouldn't recasters do the same thing? Is there something you can add to resin to make it cheaper but with the "minor" side effect of causing cancer in anyone who comes in contact with it? I don't know, which is why I was asking. But I am genuinely surprised that you wonder why I, or others, might question the ethics of a business built off of "borrowing" the designs and IP's of another company when it comes to the safety of the materials used by said company. Especially when said company is located in a country known for its lax consumer protection laws, all the while other manufacturers in that very same country has been found to add poisonous additives to products that are sold on mainstream markets. Not legally gray markets like our non-FW sources ply.

Regarding assumptions shouldn't Occam's Razor be applied to your hypothesis that these products are completely safe?

And, Sigvtar was good enough to share that their were higher toxicity levels in the products he tested. Granted, they weren't enough to make someone's hair fall out after their first exposure but to me that suggests that the materials should be scrutinized a bit more.

 Genoside07 wrote:
I have worked in plastic packaging manufacturing business for the last 20+ years so I know a few things about plastics; I personally don't know to many of you and have no way of stopping someone from hurting themselves. But how many of us really wear safety glasses, dust masks, rubber gloves, etc every single time we work with our miniatures? I am not saying every single knock off miniature will hurt you, but extended exposure to some chemicals can cause liver and/or kidney damage. And I am surprised to hear someone tested the materials, because when we send anything out to private labs it usually costs a few hundred dollars, enough to buy a ton forge world stuff. So is getting cheap miniatures worth it?? That's not my call.. Its all about want and need. But if someone is already breaking the law by counterfeiting; do you think they are insuring the resin is cured properly or safe materials are used?

Genoside07, excellent post. The bold part at the end sums up my suspicions perfectly.

 kronk wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Brook is specifically referring to their free shipping promotions, which over the last few years, while everyone else and his dog simply have a voucher code entry at the checkout, have required, at least under certain circumstances, people to fax their order through.

It is a thing.

Ah. That's pretty dumb.

Yeah, I should've been more specific, but that. I mean, when you checkout at the FW site, there is a voucher code box, but why must I call or fax them the code? It's just so stupid.

 BrookM wrote:
I mean, when you checkout at the FW site, there is a voucher code box, but why must I call or fax them the code? It's just so stupid.

Their site is somewhat dysfunctional. For example, they're limited to the number of bundles they can have on it so in order to introduce a new one they need to retire an old one. I can well imagine in that case they can only have so many voucher codes active at any one time.

BeAfraid wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
3-D printing will not replace casting for a long time. The printers are too expensive and too slow relative to molds to make creating detailed miniatures that way feasible.

It takes hours to make a single miniature with a 3-d printer. In that same period, I can cast dozens of models using a regular mold.

You would need to define "a long time."

I've worked with 3D Printing and Milling technologies for around 12 years now, and the newer technologies are becoming incredibly fast (with multiple cyclic print-heads that can lay down multiple layers a second).

And Stereolithography can be incredibly fast (but remains incredibly expensive, comparatively, to deposition printing methods).

But we have seen, in five years, the price of 3D printers fall to below $1,000 for .12mm resolution deposition printing, and below $5,000 for Stereolithography (with a very tiny print-tray).

And it is likely that within 5 years, we are going to see the same thing happen with scanners.

In five years, the technology will be inexpensive enough that th nature of piracy will have changed considerably.

For instance, with what I have available at the place where I am currently contracted, I have been extremely tempted to scan a bunch of 40K stuff, and then print it at 15mm size.... Since so many people want 15mm 40K, that isn't just a proxy.

MB

Even if the printer can make a Marine in a minute, I can cast 10 marines in about 2 minutes.

While you don't need mass production for personal use, that is still entering the realm of ridiculous expense because not everyone will have a 3-d printer capable of making this miniature of acceptable quality. And those who do will have just made the most expensive GW knockoffs ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They couldn't do any sort of detail work.

Now they can, sort of, but they still take forever. And even if they manage to become fast enough to mass produce anything they'll remain complicated and expensive pieces of equipment. Molds will still be preferable forms of production.

We're not talking mass production though, we're talking being able to download and print a couple of dozen Space Marines for the home user, or even scan and replicate the same.

I agree, as a mass production method it's probably a significant time yet (if it ever becomes practical or necessary) but for the scale needed (both in terms of modelling scale and scope) for a hobbyist to, in effect, recast their own models, I think it is a lot closer.

As I mentioned above, thats entering the realm of prohibitively expensive. Even when everyone does have a 3-d printer in their home, its not going to be the top of the line model you'd need to get the detail required by 28mm miniatures. And if it is, you're making expensive toys with an even more absurdly expensive toy.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Woops, no, that was typo on my part

Ah, okay! So non-GW/FW resin is slightly more toxic than the official stuff. Therein lies my concern. Why is it slightly more toxic? What was added?

 Azreal13 wrote:


I'm pretty sure nobody is eating their recasts.

Hobbyists, not likely. Pets, or children, however...

But that would apply to normal models, and dozens of things in any household. I don't leave my models in reach of my pets, because I don't want my pets to eat them.

Aside from any potential toxicity issues, resin can break into incredibly sharp slivers which could do serious harm to a small child or dog if they chewed and swallowed them.

Not leaving your man dollies in reach of those that may chew them is just good practice.

Regarding assumptions shouldn't Occam's Razor be applied to your hypothesis that these products are completely safe?

I am applying it.

Resin is cheap, therefore it is reasonable to assume there is little motivation to cut it with something to make it bulk it out to make it go further.

You're right, I haven't tested it, I have no first hand knowledge of a recasting process, and whether they're simple garage operations or more sophisticated, but my assertion is simple why add something to make a cheap product go further and my only question is what would they add that would be cheaper than resin (because if it costs more, what's the point? Unless you think they wish to deliberately harm their customers,) still allow the resin to flow and cure as intended (accounting for the fact that many people cite the fact that quality is at, or above the original's standard, it cannot impede the function at all) and is toxic enough to pose a risk to health statistically above what resin may already carry due to fine particulate dust.

It just seems most logical to me that they're simply using resin....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They couldn't do any sort of detail work.

Now they can, sort of, but they still take forever. And even if they manage to become fast enough to mass produce anything they'll remain complicated and expensive pieces of equipment. Molds will still be preferable forms of production.

We're not talking mass production though, we're talking being able to download and print a couple of dozen Space Marines for the home user, or even scan and replicate the same.

I agree, as a mass production method it's probably a significant time yet (if it ever becomes practical or necessary) but for the scale needed (both in terms of modelling scale and scope) for a hobbyist to, in effect, recast their own models, I think it is a lot closer.

As I mentioned above, thats entering the realm of prohibitively expensive. Even when everyone does have a 3-d printer in their home, its not going to be the top of the line model you'd need to get the detail required by 28mm miniatures. And if it is, you're making expensive toys with an even more absurdly expensive toy.

You're kind of jumping between your two points there.

My point was that in 3-5 years we could reasonably expect a 3D printer that is both reasonably costed and capable of sufficiently high quality for our purposes as hobbyists.

You're kind of using the drawbacks of now to argue against what may be in existence in a few years time.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

The answer to me is cost. Adding that gak to those products increased profit for those companies at the expense of consumers. So why wouldn't recasters do the same thing? Is there something you can add to resin to make it cheaper but with the "minor" side effect of causing cancer in anyone who comes in contact with it? I don't know, which is why I was asking. But I am genuinely surprised that you wonder why I, or others, might question the ethics of a business built off of "borrowing" the designs and IP's of another company when it comes to the safety of the materials used by said company. Especially when said company is located in a country known for its lax consumer protection laws, all the while other manufacturers in that very same country has been found to add poisonous additives to products that are sold on mainstream markets. Not legally gray markets like our non-FW sources ply.

Regarding assumptions shouldn't Occam's Razor be applied to your hypothesis that these products are completely safe?

And, Sigvtar was good enough to share that their were higher toxicity levels in the products he tested. Granted, they weren't enough to make someone's hair fall out after their first exposure but to me that suggests that the materials should be scrutinized a bit more.

I've indulged in a bit of resin casting from time to time, and the process is reasonably simple. Most people who do it pick up their materials from a producer of such chemicals; I'd be extremely surprised to learn that a forgeworld recaster was actually synthesizing the resin and rubber compounds themselves for the process in their back rooms. What is more likely the case is that the recaster is purchasing the materials from somebody within China/Russia with which they make the molds/models.Which would actually weigh against the recaster getting substandard/modified resins if they can, simply because a substandard resin wouldn't cast as well, which would result in an inferior product, which would in turn result in damage to their customer base.

In other words, I would wager that beyond eating it, recast Forgeworld is not going to be any sort of health risk beyond that which normal resin causes. I would argue that the proof in the pudding is how forgeworld recasts have gone from, 'Cross your fingers and hope something shows up' to 'Jesus Christ, look at that melted face/moldlines' to 'Wow, this is better than Forgeworld!'. Many of the recasters who do it now have email distribution chains for their repeat customers now, because the business has reached a point whereby it is a solid, sustainable source of income to them. And naturally, like most businessmen, they want to capitalise on their investments (casting thousands of molds for a full GW catalogue is expensive and time consuming), and the best way to do that is to build a good reputation. In other words, good quality casts and good customer service. In some cases, they even accept returns or mail out missing components. Such people will not be deliberately using toxic chemicals that will harm their ability to sell in such a limited market.

This is not to say that it is impossible that some low grade recaster will buy some low grade tainted resin from some other place in China, dip it in enriched uranium for good measure, and send it out. But if you're savvy, deal with recasters who enourage repeat customers, and take proper care during preparation, there should be little to no risk that you can't see coming a mile off.

Can't remember the exact analysis, twas' a while ago. Toxicity levels weren't high, however, they were just slightly above the FW probe (1 piece). We were told that this does not necessarily mean that a completely different piece of resin was used, it could just as well be sloppy working. But in the end, we really didn't care What mattered / matters to us is that they are safe to use.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Spoiler:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Woops, no, that was typo on my part

Ah, okay! So non-GW/FW resin is slightly more toxic than the official stuff. Therein lies my concern. Why is it slightly more toxic? What was added?

 Azreal13 wrote:


I'm pretty sure nobody is eating their recasts.

Hobbyists, not likely. Pets, or children, however...

But that would apply to normal models, and dozens of things in any household. I don't leave my models in reach of my pets, because I don't want my pets to eat them.

Aside from any potential toxicity issues, resin can break into incredibly sharp slivers which could do serious harm to a small child or dog if they chewed and swallowed them.

Not leaving your man dollies in reach of those that may chew them is just good practice.

Regarding assumptions shouldn't Occam's Razor be applied to your hypothesis that these products are completely safe?

I am applying it.

Resin is cheap, therefore it is reasonable to assume there is little motivation to cut it with something to make it bulk it out to make it go further.

You're right, I haven't tested it, I have no first hand knowledge of a recasting process, and whether they're simple garage operations or more sophisticated, but my assertion is simple why add something to make a cheap product go further and my only question is what would they add that would be cheaper than resin (because if it costs more, what's the point? Unless you think they wish to deliberately harm their customers,) still allow the resin to flow and cure as intended (accounting for the fact that many people cite the fact that quality is at, or above the original's standard, it cannot impede the function at all) and is toxic enough to pose a risk to health statistically above what resin may already carry due to fine particulate dust.

It just seems most logical to me that they're simply using resin....

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Spoiler:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Woops, no, that was typo on my part

Ah, okay! So non-GW/FW resin is slightly more toxic than the official stuff. Therein lies my concern. Why is it slightly more toxic? What was added?

 Azreal13 wrote:


I'm pretty sure nobody is eating their recasts.

Hobbyists, not likely. Pets, or children, however...

But that would apply to normal models, and dozens of things in any household. I don't leave my models in reach of my pets, because I don't want my pets to eat them.

Aside from any potential toxicity issues, resin can break into incredibly sharp slivers which could do serious harm to a small child or dog if they chewed and swallowed them.

Not leaving your man dollies in reach of those that may chew them is just good practice.

Regarding assumptions shouldn't Occam's Razor be applied to your hypothesis that these products are completely safe?

I am applying it.

Resin is cheap, therefore it is reasonable to assume there is little motivation to cut it with something to make it bulk it out to make it go further.

You're right, I haven't tested it, I have no first hand knowledge of a recasting process, and whether they're simple garage operations or more sophisticated, but my assertion is simple why add something to make a cheap product go further and my only question is what would they add that would be cheaper than resin (because if it costs more, what's the point? Unless you think they wish to deliberately harm their customers,) still allow the resin to flow and cure as intended (accounting for the fact that many people cite the fact that quality is at, or above the original's standard, it cannot impede the function at all) and is toxic enough to pose a risk to health statistically above what resin may already carry due to fine particulate dust.

It just seems most logical to me that they're simply using resin....

Additionally, the recaster is the one mixing, pouring, and working with the resin. Wouldn't they themselves want to use a safe product due to their own extensive exposure?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Additionally, the recaster is the one mixing, pouring, and working with the resin. Wouldn't they themselves want to use a safe product due to their own extensive exposure?

Have you seen how leather is produced in low-rights countries?

China is pretty much devoid from worker rights.

So, we're assuming these recasters are big companies or organizations? I thought they were self employed individuals.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, we're assuming these recasters are big companies or organizations? I thought they were self employed individuals.

Depends. There certainly are inviduals, but some are better organized in the open or are organized upon themselves...a "company" instead of a company.

Considering the volume of sales, you can bet that some of these guys have a couple of helping hands.

 Grey Templar wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
3-D printing will not replace casting for a long time. The printers are too expensive and too slow relative to molds to make creating detailed miniatures that way feasible.

It takes hours to make a single miniature with a 3-d printer. In that same period, I can cast dozens of models using a regular mold.

You would need to define "a long time."

I've worked with 3D Printing and Milling technologies for around 12 years now, and the newer technologies are becoming incredibly fast (with multiple cyclic print-heads that can lay down multiple layers a second).

And Stereolithography can be incredibly fast (but remains incredibly expensive, comparatively, to deposition printing methods).

But we have seen, in five years, the price of 3D printers fall to below $1,000 for .12mm resolution deposition printing, and below $5,000 for Stereolithography (with a very tiny print-tray).

And it is likely that within 5 years, we are going to see the same thing happen with scanners.

In five years, the technology will be inexpensive enough that th nature of piracy will have changed considerably.

For instance, with what I have available at the place where I am currently contracted, I have been extremely tempted to scan a bunch of 40K stuff, and then print it at 15mm size.... Since so many people want 15mm 40K, that isn't just a proxy.

MB

Even if the printer can make a Marine in a minute, I can cast 10 marines in about 2 minutes.

While you don't need mass production for personal use, that is still entering the realm of ridiculous expense because not everyone will have a 3-d printer capable of making this miniature of acceptable quality. And those who do will have just made the most expensive GW knockoffs ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They couldn't do any sort of detail work.

Now they can, sort of, but they still take forever. And even if they manage to become fast enough to mass produce anything they'll remain complicated and expensive pieces of equipment. Molds will still be preferable forms of production.

We're not talking mass production though, we're talking being able to download and print a couple of dozen Space Marines for the home user, or even scan and replicate the same.

I agree, as a mass production method it's probably a significant time yet (if it ever becomes practical or necessary) but for the scale needed (both in terms of modelling scale and scope) for a hobbyist to, in effect, recast their own models, I think it is a lot closer.

As I mentioned above, thats entering the realm of prohibitively expensive. Even when everyone does have a 3-d printer in their home, its not going to be the top of the line model you'd need to get the detail required by 28mm miniatures. And if it is, you're making expensive toys with an even more absurdly expensive toy.

Are you old enough to remember the 1970s, or 1980s when the Cassette Tape and CD were invented?

When the Cassette first came out, they were then the equivalent of around $100 a piece in today's money. CDs were even more expensive.

And people complained that they would never have the quality needed to replace vinyl or Reel-to-reel, for the "real" music affectionados.

And people complained that the time it took to burn a CD meant that people would never adopt them for home use.

A 3D printer that is just a few hundred dollars isn't a "luxury' any more than is a 2D printer that costs $500 now (Professional printers cost even more, but they are almost all under $1,000, unless they have huge print heads).

Rep-rap, Makers Faire, and others producing lower resolution printers have them for around $250 now, with a .12mm resolution.

And that resolution is effectively halving every two years.

That means that by 2020, you will be able to get a printer for about $200 that has a resolution high enough to print miniatures (.03mm).

And for a little more than that, you can have one that can print to a .0001mm resolution, by 2020.

And I seriously doubt you can cast, in resin, 20 miniatures in 20 seconds.

Resins tend to take a few hours of time to set hard enough to remove from the mold.

And quality control would demand even more time that this.

Not to mention that with a multiple cyclic head, you could print not one, but around 100 miniatures on a print bed that was 64-square inches to one square foot every second.

Currently, a printer like one used at Shaeways can print around 2400 miniatures in around 15 to 20 minutes on the print bed of one of their medium sized machines.

It might not replace many forms of mass production at once.

But it will provide a means of severely affecting the way manufacturers work, when their products can be "pirated" in not just one way, but many.

MB

I can buy a 2d printer for $50 and I still don't print books at home.

That's a slightly flawed comparison, it would be more like

"I can buy a book printing and binding machine for $50 and I still don't produce my own books."

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


While I agree with you to a degree, the last statement is the sticking point for me.

How do you know? Are these underground recasting sites, which rely on word of mouth, e-mail chains, and posts on forums like 4chan because they cannot advertise in the mainstream, really thinking about long term growth of their customer base? Or are they milking a money making fad?

A fair question.

I think the answer lies in the fact that certain recasters have invested substantial sums of money in setting up the casting apparatus, and creating literally thousands of molds. It's simply too much of a risk for them to be a fly by night operation. The costs of production are low enough that they can already turn a quite substantial profit using materials of a similar quality to Forgeworld. Why risk absolutely everything to shave an extra two dollars of profit for every hundred dollar transaction when you're already making a seventy dollar profit?

To reinforce that reasoning, any recaster could just send out terrible casts of the highest grossing items, take the money and run. So why do certain recasters take the time and effort to make sure that they have good quality, or offer a returns or missing parts policy? The answer is that those people have decided that amassing a contacts list and selling on the basis of good quality/customer service ultimately makes more money than a fly by night operation. And if that's the reasoning being followed, it would make absolutely no sense to poison and drive away your customers to save a few bucks.

And ultimately if I have to twist myself into a pretzel to acquire "safe" knock offs, I'd rather just buy the legitimate thing.

Certainly. To you right now, acquiring the necessary information to get the best recasts would require an investment of time and hassle that you simply cannot be bothered with. So the price differential is less of an issue for you, as you value your time more than your money.

In someone else's shoes who does know the market though, you'll find that they spend no more time than you do in ordering, and save the money to boot. It all ultimately comes down to your level of experience and knowledge in these things, and whether or not you are willing to put that initial legwork in to acquire it.